A high-ranking New South Wales detective who allegedly consumed more than 20 drinks before crashing a police car could be acquitted of high-range drink-driving after “fruitful” negotiations between the prosecution and defence.
The officer, who can only be referred to as AB under a 40-year suppression order, allegedly crashed a police car in Sydney’s NorthConnex tunnel after getting drunk at a work function in May 2023. After he crashed the car, he allegedly did “a runner”.
Downing Centre local court on Thursday heard AB would not enter a guilty or not guilty plea, with the magistrate instead invited to make two findings next Friday.
The deal, which the prosecutor Alison Graylin said came after “fruitful” discussions between the parties, could see the senior detective acquitted of a high-range drink-driving charge but found guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol – the lesser of the two charges. It comes after AB previously pleaded not guilty to the charges in December.
The court heard on Thursday that the outcome was possible under a section of the NSW Road Transport Act. The magistrate would be given a set of facts – agreed between the prosecution and defence – that the findings would be based on.
In July, the police watchdog handed down a scathing report into AB’s conduct, making a serious misconduct finding against the officer for allegedly “deliberately leaving the scene of a crash he caused … to avoid being breath-tested”.
A second serious misconduct finding was made against the senior detective for being deliberately dishonest about his alcohol use in an insurance claim after the crash – where he said he “fell asleep” at the wheel.
The report by the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission stated that in the immediate aftermath of the crash, AB was not questioned about his alcohol consumption.
That was despite officers contemplating that alcohol may have contributed to the crash. The police watchdog report noted he had consumed 13 schooners of XXXX Gold and eight mixed-spirit drinks prior to the crash.
The case has been marked by extraordinary secrecy, with the court initially refusing to reveal which courtroom two earlier mentions were held in.
In October, media contacted the office of the state attorney general, Michael Daley, to express concern that access had effectively been denied by the court. The registrar then provided the room location for subsequent mentions.
However, AB’s case has not been listed on the online public registry which provides information regarding when and where a matter is to be heard.
The prosecutor on Thursday raised this issue with the magistrate, stating the suppression order – which restricts the disclosure of any information that could identify the accused – did not preclude the matter from being listed under the pseudonym AB.
“It’s clearly not the case in the terms of the [suppression] order, and this is a matter with significant public interest and it has had extensive media interest … and the director’s view is that this matter should be dealt with in the same way as any other matter that comes before the court,” Graylin said on Thursday.
Magistrate Daniel Covington agreed a suppression order did not mean the matter should be kept off the court list.
“If it is not on the court list, it probably should be,” Covington said.
Under the suppression order for AB’s case, the commissioner of police is to be “notified of any application for access to the court file and is to have the opportunity to be heard prior to any decision on access”.
Sam Lee, a solicitor at Redfern Legal Centre and expert in police accountability, said in mid-October: “When it has been alleged an officer has committed an offence, the principle of open justice requires that an officer be subject to the same level of transparency as the general public. Without openness, integrity wilts away.”
AB’s matter was scheduled to return to court for a hearing on 22 November.
